Dilemma of choices; coupons & guides debate
Comments
-
-
Gh0st_Slay3r wrote: »People are allowed their own opinion - Talon feels you should of added one or a few more ranges for snipers. Thats his opinion, get over it.... No need to keep rubbing things in. By that post its like you are trying to get a reaction from him...
I just want to know if he has gotten around to looking at the thread yet or not. -
GodsGunman wrote: »I think talon may have given up, wise choice on his part.Gh0st_Slay3r wrote: »lol, your post mentioned nothing about that... it was clearly trying to provoke him if you ask me. And whys it matter if he has looked at it or not anyway?
I want to know if I should be expecting to continue this argument or not.
Yes I did give a little nudge, but he ****ed me off. -
-
-
GodsGunman wrote: »I think talon may have given up, wise choice on his part.
Ah, school my good fellow. Priorities come first. Now that I am home I can argue with thee all night. ^..^To try to explain the sniper testing:
If a sniper is a 1 shot to the chest at 5M, and stays a 1 shot to the chest at 100M.
Testing it between the ranges isn't usually going to be worth it, because it is still a 1 shot kill. Rarely would something come up to justify the extra work.
If a sniper is a 2 shot to the chest at 5M, and stays a 2 shot to the chest at 100M.
Again testing between the ranges would not be worth the effort because the weapon still performs the same at very close and very far ranges.
If a sniper is a 1 shot to the chest at 5M, but becomes a 2 shot to the chest at 100M.
Then we start testing between the ranges to find where it stops becoming a 1 shot kill because the snipers performance changes drastically.
A difference of 1-5 points from 80 points isn't usually noticeable.
But a difference of 1-5 points from 100 is.
In most situations well sniping, one would be shooting at the chest. Rarely would one target the feet or arms over the chest.
Exhibit A:
M14EBR
~~5 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 33, 33.
Foot/Leg: 24, 24.
Back/Chest: 40, 39.
Headshot: 100.
~~15 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 32, 33.
Foot/Leg: 23, 24.
Back/Chest: 39, 39.
Headshot: 100.
~~30 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 32, 32.
Foot/Leg: 23, 23.
Back/Chest: 38, 38.
Headshot: 100.
~~100 meters Headshot~~
Headshot: 100.
According to your above statement, testing them at ranges and noting how little variation is almost fruitless and pointless. Yet here we have a perfect example (not the only one mind you) where you placed statistics where there was literally only a 1-2 point difference in alot of these stats. Even from a 25m difference. Now, if a sniper such as the M700 that has such a drastic difference between its maximum range to its minimum range only have these two statistics; but here we have the m14 whos statistics are practically indifferent (given human error of course) within its ranges and doesn't even change from kill capabilities within these ranges. Yet, it STILL has more ranges tested from and noted despite this.
Now, with the letters bolded above in the quote, why is this weapon exempt from your special rule? A 1-2 point difference between 5-30m isn't enough to be noted, but clearly it is there and doesn't change the performance and effectiveness of the gun whatsoever.
Where as the PSG-RD at least has some considerable variables, especially for leg kills. Regardless of how minor a chance of 2 or 3 shot is. -
[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »Ah, school my good fellow. Priorities come first. Now that I am home I can argue with thee all night. ^..^
Saw you were online and active a bunch of times so wasn't sure if you gave up or not which was the reason for the post.[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »Exhibit A:
M14EBR
~~5 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 33, 33.
Foot/Leg: 24, 24.
Back/Chest: 40, 39.
Headshot: 100.
~~15 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 32, 33.
Foot/Leg: 23, 24.
Back/Chest: 39, 39.
Headshot: 100.
~~30 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 32, 32.
Foot/Leg: 23, 23.
Back/Chest: 38, 38.
Headshot: 100.
~~100 meters Headshot~~
Headshot: 100.
According to your above statement, testing them at ranges and noting how little variation is almost fruitless and pointless. Yet here we have a perfect example (not the only one mind you) where you placed statistics where there was literally only a 1-2 point difference in alot of these stats. Even from a 25m difference. Now, if a sniper such as the M700 that has such a drastic difference between its maximum range to its minimum range only have these two statistics; but here we have the m14 whos statistics are practically indifferent (given human error of course) within its ranges and doesn't even change from kill capabilities within these ranges. Yet, it STILL has more ranges tested from and noted despite this.
Now, with the letters bolded above in the quote, why is this weapon exempt from your special rule? A 1-2 point difference between 5-30m isn't enough to be noted, but clearly it is there and doesn't change the performance and effectiveness of the gun whatsoever.
Where as the PSG-RD at least has some considerable variables, especially for leg kills. Regardless of how minor a chance of 2 or 3 shot is.
Because each class of guns are treated differently, but within those classes they're treated the same.
Nobody (except trolls that just want to argue) will care if a sniper is a 2 or 3 shot kill to the legs.
I already went over this, you're going around in circles. -
GodsGunman wrote: »Saw you were online and active a bunch of times so wasn't sure if you gave up or not which was the reason for the post.
Because each class of guns are treated differently, but within those classes they're treated the same.
Nobody (except trolls that just want to argue) will care if a sniper is a 2 or 3 shot kill to the legs.
I already went over this, you're going around in circles.
You haven't explained WHY they are treated differently, despite having clearly different statistics. So far the arguments you've presented have been:
A) They are snipers.
They apparently vary little in gun performance to bother anyways (which was shown by my last post that was wrong, biasing such merely on the class).
Take class out of the picture, if these were super slow firing assault rifles with a scope, would you still have neglected to posted further ranges? -
[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »You haven't explained WHY they are treated differently, despite having clearly different statistics. So far the arguments you've presented have been:
A) They are snipers. They apparently vary little in gun performance to bother anyways (which was shown by my last post that was wrong, biasing such merely on the class).
Take class out of the picture, if these were super slow firing assault rifles with a scope, would you still have neglected to posted further ranges?
If they were slow firing assault rifles I probably would have tested them at 5m, 15m and 30m like all the other assault rifles. Guess what? I didn't find the X shot kill to the Y shot kill for any of the assault rifles for shooting legs either.
I did post why I treated them differently, I'd just rather not go through a bunch of pages and thousands of words to find it. -
GodsGunman wrote: »If they were slow firing assault rifles I probably would have tested them at 5m, 15m and 30m like all the other assault rifles. Guess what? I didn't find the X shot kill to the Y shot kill for any of the assault rifles for shooting legs either.
I did post why I treated them differently, I'd just rather not go through a bunch of pages and thousands of words to find it.
Not testing beyond a range is different than not providing information within a range.
The difference you have done is that you did 3 ranges despite the minor variations. Why couldn't the EBR only have two ranges? 5m and 30m for its body damage? It made little difference according to your statistics.
If you know there is a variable considerably in damage, there should be at least a middle for these semi-autos. I see no reason for there not to be.
You ranting about not doing 'pointless' statistics and ranges, and yet you've done so for alot of guns without ever questioning them, be them 1 point different or not. And you choose to be biased against a set of weapons merely because of the class. -
Gh0st_Slay3r wrote: »I gotta agree with talon that it would of been nice if you did at least 1 more half way between the others... just extremely close and extremely far away just seem a little odd if you ask me.
This might sound funny , but what GG is doing is correct
from the farthest distance and the closest distance , measure the damage loss over the range and devided by 2 , so you get approximately how much damage you should deal at halfway range for example , test at 5 meters then at 100 meters lets say the damage dif is 18 , so the damage loss at 50 meters would be 8 or 9 or 10 -
This might sound funny , but what GG is doing is correct
from the farthest distance and the closest distance , measure the damage loss over the range and devided by 2 , so you get approximately how much damage you should deal at halfway range for example , test at 5 meters then at 100 meters lets say the damage dif is 18 , so the damage loss at 50 meters would be 8 or 9 or 10
If he is making a guide so that people dont have to figure that out themselves then he probably should of done at least one more lol. If someone looks for a guide about it im pretty sure they dont wanna be doing the math/working it out themselves xDD
But we are all entitled to our opinions :P -
gh0st_slay3r wrote: »if he is making a guide so that people dont have to figure that out themselves then he probably should of done at least one more lol. If someone looks for a guide about it im pretty sure they dont wanna be doing the math/working it out themselves xdd
but we are all entitled to our opinions
أنت كسول فحسب يا بني -
-
[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »Not testing beyond a range is different than not providing information within a range.
The only ranges outside of where I tested are 100m+ and <5m (for snipers)[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »The difference you have done is that you did 3 ranges despite the minor variations. Why couldn't the EBR only have two ranges? 5m and 30m for its body damage? It made little difference according to your statistics.
Because it's an assault rifle as I said many times. This is so repetitive.[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »If you know there is a variable considerably in damage, there should be at least a middle for these semi-autos. I see no reason for there not to be.
You ranting about not doing 'pointless' statistics and ranges, and yet you've done so for alot of guns without ever questioning them, be them 1 point different or not. And you choose to be biased against a set of weapons merely because of the class.
I didn't do 100m for rifles yet you haven't brought that up.
I do each class differently.
I found out where the 1 shot kill range is for the sniper rifles that can 1 shot kill.
If I did the "x shot kill to y shot kill" idea for every gun, I would be doing damages forever. Why should sniper rifles get that special privilege? -
Let me put it in another perspective for you, since the questions are only running in circles on both sides.
If in the event FinalShot reviews decided to do damage and stat tests themselves like your own (not saying they would, but giving instances here);
And they concluded that at 50 meters the M700 did 60 damage to Hand/Arm.
Would you be able to say they are wrong?
As mad as you are at me, you are instead taking it as me trying to take you down. When in fact, this is merely another opportunity to make you more accurate and more reliable in your information.
With one shot snipers, I entirely agree with your system. It isn't needed. Since even with armor those wouldn't likely change.
However, semi's vary a bit more and should a bit more detail. It's not like I'm asking you to revamp your entire guide. Merely adding a mid section to a section of snipers that differs to it's counterparts. It's simply 6 weapons, 6 sections.
If you are REALLY bothered by doing such, I would even volunteer to so. -
[MOD]Talonblaze wrote: »Ah, school my good fellow. Priorities come first. Now that I am home I can argue with thee all night. ^..^
Exhibit A:
M14EBR
~~5 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 33, 33.
Foot/Leg: 24, 24.
Back/Chest: 40, 39.
Headshot: 100.
~~15 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 32, 33.
Foot/Leg: 23, 24.
Back/Chest: 39, 39.
Headshot: 100.
~~30 meters~~
Hand/Arm: 32, 32.
Foot/Leg: 23, 23.
Back/Chest: 38, 38.
Headshot: 100.
~~100 meters Headshot~~
Headshot: 100.
According to your above statement, testing them at ranges and noting how little variation is almost fruitless and pointless. Yet here we have a perfect example (not the only one mind you) where you placed statistics where there was literally only a 1-2 point difference in alot of these stats. Even from a 25m difference. Now, if a sniper such as the M700 that has such a drastic difference between its maximum range to its minimum range only have these two statistics; but here we have the m14 whos statistics are practically indifferent (given human error of course) within its ranges and doesn't even change from kill capabilities within these ranges. Yet, it STILL has more ranges tested from and noted despite this.
Now, with the letters bolded above in the quote, why is this weapon exempt from your special rule? A 1-2 point difference between 5-30m isn't enough to be noted, but clearly it is there and doesn't change the performance and effectiveness of the gun whatsoever.
Where as the PSG-RD at least has some considerable variables, especially for leg kills. Regardless of how minor a chance of 2 or 3 shot is.
Talon. How are we supposed to know that the damage only varies by 1-2 before we test it?
Aren't we testing it to FIND the damage because we DON'T know the damage before testing it?
We test the rifles at 3 ranges to find the damage for each. We don't know the damage for each rifle before we test them, and we test 3 ranges for rifles because most rifles do 30-40 damage to the chest, a small variance of damage can change a rifle from a 3 shot to a 4 shot, so all rifles get tested at 3 ranges.
Sniper rifles are usually only 1 shot or 2 shot. So we test the very long range (The expected use of a sniper) to find its damage, then the short range to see if it performs better at short range. If it does we test it further in till we find the cut off point. Better meaning does it kill faster or more efficient.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- Off-Topic - Go To Game OT Forums
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 16 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 5.2K CrossFire
- 950 CrossFire Announcements
- 942 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 1.4K Community
- 122 Modes
- 600 Suggestions
- 85 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 274 CF Competitive Forum
- 19 CFCL
- 26 Looking for a Team?
- 700 CrossFire Support
- 52 Suggestion
- 116 Bugs
- 28 CrossFire Guides
- 166 Technical Issues
- 47 CrossFire Off Topic